Tool Use
Key References
DEFINING
SHUMAKER et al. (2011) (after BECK (1980)): "the external employment of an unattached or manipulable
attached environmental object to alter more efficiently the form, position, or condition of another
object, another organism, or the user itself when the user holds and directly manipulates the tool during
or prior to use and is responsible.”
Construction
HANSELL & RUXTON (2008): cognitive complexity of tool use vs. construction behaviour
Beavers are considered tool users because of the “step” they use to fell trees at a higher level up
the trunk, but this is unlikely to have more cognitive complexity than their intricately constructed
dams
The Ammophila wasp is considered a tool-user because of its use of a stone “hammer” to compress
the material at the entrance of its burrow. The basis of this behaviour, however, is likely to be
genetic and deeply intrinsic, rather than demonstrative of advanced cognitive development and
intelligence
TAXONOMIC DISTRIBUTION
OAKLEY (1949): identifies tool use as a distinctive human feature.
GOODALL (1960s): first paper to challenge the misconception that only humans use tools
Chimpanzees at Gombe use sticks to “fish” for termites
Taxonomic distribution of tool use is broad: 4 phyla and 10 classes, but overall is a rare trait (<0.2% of
catalogued animal genera).
ARE TOOL USERS COGNITIVELY SPECIAL?
Opposition
SANTOS et al. (2006): rake task experiment featuring two non-tool-users – cotton top tamarins (Saguinus
oedipus) and vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops). Found that both species were able to recognise
that effective pulling tools must be made of rigid materials
Suggest that tool use may derive from domain-general as opposed to domain-specific cognitive
capacities that evolved for tool use per se (ibid.)
Primates
Is the most “intelligent” tool use found among primates? Challenged by examples of secondary (use a tool
to get another tool) and tertiary tool use (use a tool to get another tool to get another tool) by New
Caledonian crows (WIMPENNY et al. 2009).
Captivity bias
BIRO et al. (2013): in captivity, conspecifics have been shown to practice a greater range of tool-related
behaviours than in the wild. A number of environmental and social factors could account for this effect,
Key References
DEFINING
SHUMAKER et al. (2011) (after BECK (1980)): "the external employment of an unattached or manipulable
attached environmental object to alter more efficiently the form, position, or condition of another
object, another organism, or the user itself when the user holds and directly manipulates the tool during
or prior to use and is responsible.”
Construction
HANSELL & RUXTON (2008): cognitive complexity of tool use vs. construction behaviour
Beavers are considered tool users because of the “step” they use to fell trees at a higher level up
the trunk, but this is unlikely to have more cognitive complexity than their intricately constructed
dams
The Ammophila wasp is considered a tool-user because of its use of a stone “hammer” to compress
the material at the entrance of its burrow. The basis of this behaviour, however, is likely to be
genetic and deeply intrinsic, rather than demonstrative of advanced cognitive development and
intelligence
TAXONOMIC DISTRIBUTION
OAKLEY (1949): identifies tool use as a distinctive human feature.
GOODALL (1960s): first paper to challenge the misconception that only humans use tools
Chimpanzees at Gombe use sticks to “fish” for termites
Taxonomic distribution of tool use is broad: 4 phyla and 10 classes, but overall is a rare trait (<0.2% of
catalogued animal genera).
ARE TOOL USERS COGNITIVELY SPECIAL?
Opposition
SANTOS et al. (2006): rake task experiment featuring two non-tool-users – cotton top tamarins (Saguinus
oedipus) and vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops). Found that both species were able to recognise
that effective pulling tools must be made of rigid materials
Suggest that tool use may derive from domain-general as opposed to domain-specific cognitive
capacities that evolved for tool use per se (ibid.)
Primates
Is the most “intelligent” tool use found among primates? Challenged by examples of secondary (use a tool
to get another tool) and tertiary tool use (use a tool to get another tool to get another tool) by New
Caledonian crows (WIMPENNY et al. 2009).
Captivity bias
BIRO et al. (2013): in captivity, conspecifics have been shown to practice a greater range of tool-related
behaviours than in the wild. A number of environmental and social factors could account for this effect,
